Hepatitis C

Simon Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the trends in rates of infection of hepatitis C among injectors in the last three years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

Caroline Flint: holding answer 6 June 2005
	Information on the prevalence of antibodies to hepatitis C, found in both past and current infection, among current and former injecting drug users in contact with drug agencies and services, may be obtained from the Health Protection Agency's unlinked anonymous prevalence monitoring programme. In addition, the prevalence of antibodies among those who began injecting in the last three years, that is, recent injectors, is also available from this survey. Figures for the last three years are available from the Health Protection Agency report "Shooting Up", October 2004. This is available at: www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics az/injectingdrug users/ShootingUp-2004.pdf.
	Among its many conclusions, the report states that the proportion of injecting drug users reporting having a voluntary confidential test for hepatitis C has increased, indicating that efforts to improve access to testing may be working.

Hepatitis C

Bob Laxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to introduce proactive screening of at risk groups for hepatitis C.

Caroline Flint: The Department has already published information and guidance for health professionals and for the public, highlighting those considered to be at risk of hepatitis C infection and who should consider being tested, or should be offered testing, for hepatitis C infection. This forms part of the hepatitis C awareness campaign and there is currently a continuing programme to raise awareness of hepatitis C among the public and those groups at risk.
	In addition, a new national health service hepatitis C awareness website has been launched at: www.hepc. nhs.uk.

Magistrates

Graham Allen: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many magistrates there are in each commission area, broken down by constituency; and what assessment she has made of trends in recruitment.

Harriet Harman: Information on the number of magistrates is collected by advisory committee area and is set out as follows as of 31 March 2005.
	
		
			 Advisory committee area Total 
		
		
			 Avon 305 
			 Barnsley 108 
			 Batley and Dewsbury 86 
			 Bedfordshire 296 
			 Berkshire 361 
			 Birmingham 414 
			 Bradford 243 
			 Bristol 292 
			 Buckinghamshire 368 
			 Calderdale 129 
			 Cambridgeshire 363 
			 Carmarthen 145 
			 Ceredigion 61 
			 Cheshire 456 
			 Cleveland 480 
			 Clwyd 396 
			 Cornwall 216 
			 Coventry 231 
			 Cumbria 295 
			 Derbyshire 398 
			 Devon 337 
			 Doncaster 180 
			 Dorset 350 
			 Dudley 220 
			 Durham 286 
			 Essex 619 
			 Gateshead 138 
			 Glamorgan—Mid 233 
			 Glamorgan—South 340 
			 Glamorgan—West 257 
			 Gloucestershire 243 
			 Greater Manchester 1,781 
			 Gwent 290 
			 Hampshire 777 
			 Hereford and Worcester 438 
			 Hertfordshire 428 
			 Huddersfield 115 
			 Humberside 272 
			 Isle of Wight 69 
			 Keighley 110 
			 Kent 763 
			 Kingston upon Hull 167 
			 Lancashire 1,140 
			 Leeds 396 
			 Leicester 273 
			 Leicestershire 246 
			 Lincolnshire 392 
			 London—City 130 
			 London—Inner 686 
			 London—Middlesex 986 
			 London—North East 515 
			 London—South East 383 
			 London—South West 374 
			 Merseyside 979 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 210 
			 Norfolk 442 
			 North Yorkshire 384 
			 Northamptonshire 380 
			 Northumberland 189 
			 Nottingham 386 
			 Nottinghamshire 270 
			 Oxfordshire 302 
			 Pembroke 71 
			 Plymouth 162 
			 Pontefract 73 
			 Powys 80 
			 Rotherham 118 
			 Sheffield 296 
			 Shropshire 234 
			 Solihull 171 
			 Somerset 259 
			 Staffordshire 535 
			 Suffolk 272 
			 Sunderland 220 
			 Surrey 349 
			 Sussex 768 
			 Sutton Coldfield 149 
			 Tyneside—North 124 
			 Tyneside— South 112 
			 Wakefield 88 
			 Walsall 170 
			 Warley 155 
			 Warwickshire 197 
			 West Bromwich 144 
			 Wiltshire 267 
			 Wolverhampton 167 
			 Totals 28,300 
		
	
	The number of magistrates recruited over the last ten years is set out as follows.
	
		
			  Magistrates recruited Men Women 
		
		
			 1994 1,593 810 783 
			 1995 1,843 907 936 
			 1996 1,682 830 852 
			 1997 1,573 764 809 
			 1998 1,609 816 793 
			 1999 1,743 884 859 
			 2000 (4)— (4)— (4)— 
			 2001(5) 1,618 834 784 
			 2002(6) 1,474 763 711 
			 2003 1,623 838 785 
			 2004 1,768 939 829 
		
	
	(4) No figures available
	(5) From 2001, data was collected on a financial year, rather than calendar year, basis.
	(6) Figures for magistrates in the Duchy of Lancaster are not available for 2002.

Sellafield

Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the safety implications of the recent leak at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant at Sellafield; and when the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is expected to make its report on the leak.

Malcolm Wicks: British Nuclear Group informed the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Nuclear Installations Inspectorate on 20 April of a leak of dissolved spent fuel, resulting from a failure in the pipe-work within the Feed Clarification Cell in the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP). Material leaked within THORP into a fully enclosed stainless steel clad cell designed to safely contain such leakages. The plant is in a safe and stable state. There has been no release of radioactivity from THORP and there is no risk to employees, the local community or the environment. Safety is the key priority and British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd. is working to recover the liquid in a safe and controlled manner. HSE has been kept informed throughout.
	BNGSL issued a press statement outlining the findings of the internal inquiry which may be found at http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/index.aspx?page =30.
	HSE is carrying out its own independent investigation, the findings of which it will make public. Because of the wide range and complexity of the investigation it is not yet known when the findings will be reported.

Housing

Nick Hurd: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which of the sites released for new housing under the proposals announced on 25 May are in (a) Greater London and (b) the constituency of Ruislip-Northwood; and which of the latter are on green belt land.

Yvette Cooper: The announcement by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer on 25 May referred to 700 sites currently entered on the register of surplus public sector land which is maintained by English Partnerships. The sites' owners and English Partnerships are currently reviewing all registered sites to assess their development potential. A list of the sites, as at March 2005, can be found on the English Partnerships website at: http://www.englishpartnerships.co.uk/images/16EE954C9Q4 340DDAB44702EF5D2ADE6.pdf
	51 sites on the Register as at March 2005 are situated in the Greater London area. One British Railways Boards (Residuary) Ltd. site at Harefield in the London borough of Hillingdon is located in Ruislip-Northwood. This site is classified as green belt land. An updated list of register sites will be published by English Partnerships towards the end of June 2005.
	In addition, it was announced on 1 April that a portfolio of nearly one hundred ex-NHS sites, would be transferred from the Department of Health to English Partnerships. The first tranche of 67 sites transferred on 6 April. Work is ongoing with partners and local authorities to assess each site to identify how they can contribute to local housing and employment needs. It is estimated that the total portfolio of 96 sites could accommodate up to 15,000 new homes nationally, with at least 5,000 being affordable. This estimate is subject to planning permission for the individual sites, and residential development will not be appropriate on all of the sites.

Public Procurement Directive

Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  how many meetings the Office of Government Commerce has had with UK companies and businesses to discuss Article 45 of the new EU Public Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC since August 2004; and if he will list the companies with which he has had such meetings;
	(2)  on what date the Office of Government Commerce intends to publish its regulations and guidance on the new EU Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC for public consultation;
	(3)  if he will place a copy of all the responses to the Office of Government Commerce consultation on the new EU Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC in the Library; and how many consultees requested confidentiality for their responses.

John Healey: The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) has engaged with both the public and private sectors on the implementation of the new EU public procurement Directive, by means of the consultation exercise undertaken in 2004. This consultation included Article 45, which concerns the mandatory exclusion from public contracts of suppliers convicted of certain offences. A summary of the 255 replies to the consultation exercise, from Government Departments, local authorities, law firms, suppliers, trade unions and other interested parties, together with OGC's response to the issues raised, has already been published on the OGC website: http://www.ogc.gov.uk/embedded object. asp?docid=1002381. The OGC will begin the second stage of consultation, on the draft Regulations to implement the new Directive, shortly. The draft Regulations take account of the responses to the earlier consultation exercise. OGC intends to publish additional guidance on specific provisions, including on Article 45, before the implementation of the new Directive. The deadline for which in all member states is 31 January 2006.

Unemployment (London)

Sarah Teather: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many (a) long-term and (b) young unemployed people there were in (i) Brent East and (ii) each London borough in each year since 1997.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Len Cook to Sarah Teather, dated 9 June 2005
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment in Brent East and each London borough. (2535)
	Table 1, attached below, shows the numbers of long-term unemployed (over 12 months) and unemployed persons aged 16 to 24 in Brent East for each 12-month period ending in February each year from 1998 to 2004, the latest period for which data are available. This is based on annual local area Labour Force Survey data which as with any statistical sample survey is subject to sampling variability.
	The Office for National Statistics also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA) for local areas. Table 2, attached below, shows the annual average number of ISA claimants claiming for over 12 months and the number of claimants aged 18 -24 resident in Brent East for each year from 1997 to 2004.
	The data in table 2 are available free of charge from the Nomis website (www.nomisweb.co.uk) which can be accessed via the House of Commons Library.
	The information requested for each London Borough was given in an answer to a previous question (ref 212371) on 7 March 2005 (Hansard column 1517W).
	
		Table 1: Unemployed resident in Brent East constituency Thousand
		
			 12 months ending February Youth (aged 16–24) Over 12 months 
		
		
			 1998 (24)— n/a 
			 1999 (24)— (24)— 
			 2000 (24)— (24)— 
			 2001 2 2 
			 2002 1 (24)— 
			 2003 2 1 
			 2004 1 1 
		
	
	n/a = data not available
	1 Zero or disclosive sample size.
	Source:
	Annual local area Labour Force Survey
	
		Table 2: JSA claimants resident in the Brent East constituency
		
			 Annual averages Youth claimants (aged 18–24)(24) All claimants for  over 12 months(24) 
		
		
			 1997 965 2,070 
			 1998 775 1,415 
			 1999 615 1,075 
			 2000 495 865 
			 2001 460 670 
			 2002 600 750 
			 2003 620 910 
			 2004 650 985 
		
	
	(24) Computerised claims only.
	Source:
	Jobcentre Plus Administrative system

School Funding

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent per student in secondary schools in England in each year since 1997.

Jacqui Smith: The information requested is contained within the following table:
	
		Secondary school based expenditure1 per pupil2 
		
			 £ 
		
		
			 1997–98 2,360 
			 1998–99 2,450 
			 1999–20003,5 2,610 
			 2000–01 2,830 
			 2001–02 3,150 
			 2002–033,4 3,230 
			 2003–04(33) 3,550 
		
	
	(30) School based expenditure includes only expenditure incurred directly by the schools. This includes the pay of teachers and school-based support staff, school premises costs, books and equipment, and certain other supplies and services, less any capital items funded from recurrent spending and income from sales, fees and charges and rents and rates. This excludes the central cost of support services such as home to school transport, local authority administration and the financing of capital expenditure.
	(31) Pupil numbers include only those pupils attending LEA maintained secondary schools and are drawn from the DfES Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.
	(32) 1999–2000 saw a change in data source when the data collection moved from the RO1 form collected by the ODPM to the Section 52 form from the DfES. 2002–03 saw a further break in the time series following the introduction of Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) and the associated restructuring of the outturn tables. The change in sources is shown by the dotted lines.
	(33) The 2002–03 and 2003–04 calculation is broadly similar to the calculation in previous years. However, 2001–02 and earlier years includes all premature retirement compensation (PRC) and Crombie payments, mandatory PRC payments and other indirect employee expenses, while in 2002–03 and 2003–04 only the schools element of these categories is included. In 2001–02 this accounted for approximately 70 per pupil of the England total, while the schools element of these categories accounted for approximately 50 per pupil of the England total in 2002–03. Also, for some LEAs, expenditure that had previously been attributed to the school sectors was reported within the LEA part of the form in 2002–03 and 2003–04 and would therefore be excluded, though this is not quantifiable from existing sources.
	(34) The 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of grant maintained schools to local authority maintenance.
	Note:
	Figures are reported in cash terms and rounded to the nearest 10 as reported by the LEA.

School Repairs

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on repairing schools in Coventry in each year since 1997.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 25 May 2005
	Revenue expenditure figures on the maintenance and improvement of schools are likely to vary from year to year depending on the unique circumstances of a particular LEA. For example, revenue expenditure will increase in years where there have been adverse weather conditions (e.g. repairing storm damage) and is also likely to vary with the number and age of the school buildings within the LEA. Revenue expenditure will also be affected by the amounts of capital expenditure employed at a school. Capital spending in Coventry LEA on school buildings has increased from £6.96 million in 1997–98 to £13.57 million in 2003–04. Figures are rounded to the nearest £1,000.
	The information concerning public funding spent on repairing schools in Coventry is contained within the following table:
	
		Maintenance and improvement of school buildings and grounds in Coventry LEA since 1997
		
			 £ 
		
		
			 1997–981,2 4,105,000 
			 1998–991,2 4,057,000 
			   
			 1999–20001,2 2,783,000 
			 2000–011,2 3,346,000 
			 2001–021,2 4,573,000 
			   
			 2002–031,2 3,374,000 
			 2003–041,2 3,238,000 
		
	
	(35) Figures for 1997–98 to 2001–02 cover the repair and maintenance of buildings, fixed plant and grounds which includes all expenditure on non-capital building works, including repairs and maintenance of buildings, and non-capital expenditure on fixed plant and grounds. Figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are the combination of the revenue expenditure on building (including fixed plant) maintenance and improvement and grounds maintenance and improvement (CFR categories E12 + E13). Any capital expenditure on school buildings is not included in this table.
	(36) Figures for 2002–03 onwards will not be directly comparable with the figures for earlier years as figures for 1997–98 to 2001–02 are for all LEA maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools (pre-primary expenditure accounts for £18,000, £46,000 and £9,000 of the respective totals in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02) while nursery figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are not available and have therefore been excluded for these two years. Also, for some LEAs, expenditure that had previously been attributed to the school sectors was reported within the LEA part of the form in 2002–03 and 2003–04 and would therefore be excluded from the totals for those years although the precise amount of this is not quantifiable from existing sources.
	Note:
	The empty rows denote the change of source from LEAs' education Revenue Outturn Statements submitted to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions to Section 52 Outturn Statements in 1999–2000, and to the review of the Section 52 categories in 2002–03 following the introduction of Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) to schools.

Student Grants

Graham Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information her Department has distributed to secondary school pupils on the restoration of student grants.

Bill Rammell: A key part of our communications campaign has been to get information into schools (including secondary schools) and sixth form colleges either directly or via student advisers and key influences, who our research tells us are the prime sources of information for students and their parents.
	This has been undertaken via a number of different channels. For instance, we have provided advisers packs—including a CD ROM, briefing notes and other material—to every school or college student advisor, as well as sending customised information to all UCAS co-ordinators.
	We aim to continue with this approach.